BABY MURDER CHARGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3610, 22 May 1923, Page 24

BABY MURDER CHARGE.

THE COOPERS ON TRIAL. WELLINGTON, Aluy 14. At the Supreme Court this morning, before Air Justice Chapman, the (rial commenced of Daniel Richard Cooper and his wife, Alartha Elizabeth Cooper, who are jointly charged that at Newlands, near Johnsonville, on or about October 20, 1922, they murdered the infant, child of Margaret Mary APLeod and William James Walsh. The prosecution was conducted by Air P. S. K. Alacassey. Cooper represented by Mr Treadwell, and with him Mr Hanna; and Alls Cooper by Air Wilford and Mr Jackson. Long before the court opened a large queue had formed outside in the street, and when his Honor took his seat on the bench the building was crowded with interested spectators, the ladies’ gallery being thronged equally with the body of the court. On being charged, both accused pleaded not guilty, the man in clear, firm tones, the woman in a voice scarcely audible. On behalf of Mrs Cooper, Mr Wilford made application for a severance of her case from that of her husband. In this connection he asked the court to consider: (1) Will the case of the Crown be prejudiced by such severance (2) Can the female accused secure a fair trial if there is not such severance? (3) Is possible that a miscarriage of justice can take place if the two accused are tried together? lie quoted at length from the authorities in support of his application .that the charge should be divided and the accused be tried separately. Hi s application w r as briefly supported by Air Treadwell, on behalf of Cooper. Opposing the application. Mr Macassev said he did not dispute that the matter was one within the discretion of the court, but he submitted that the accused should not be separated, because in M'Leod’s case at least there was evidence of complete coordination of action between the accused, lie reviewed certain portions of the evidence in the lower court in proof of this, and contended that unless the Crown was able to submit this position t.o the jury the case of the Crown would be seriously prejudiced His Honor, in ruling upon the application, said the matter was one purely for the discretion of the court. It w 7 as a usual proceeding when the case, of the Grown involved conspiracy that the persons concerned should be tried together. It had been suggested in this case that the female prisoner might be prejudiced by this course, but, having read the depositions, he was struck by the fact that this w 7 as a case remarkably free from that class of evidence in which one accuser! sought to cast, the blame on the other. There was nothing of that. As for items of evidence w'hich reflected on one prisoner and not on the other, such occurred in every case in which two persons were indicted. j In that circumstance the court, trusted t-o the intelligence of a jury to separate the evidence with a sense of justice, and he was satisfied that the jury in this case would do that. This was not merely a case of conspiracy, but one of the closest co-ordination of action, in support of which view he quoted from the depositions to show that Mrs Cooper had been in most intimate association with M'Leod and her child, and it was last seen in her hands. He had every confidence that the jury would do justice lo Mrs Cooper, and, that being so, he would dismiss the application. Some little time was occupied in empanelling the jury, both sides freely exercising' the right of challenge. Finally 12 good men and true” were selected, of who-m David Robbie was chosen foreman. It was then arranged that the jury should view the locality at Newlands where the alleged offence was committed before the court began to hear the evidence, and the court adjourned until the jury returned. THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE. WELLINGTON, Alay 14. At the Supreme Court this morning, before Air Justice Chapman, the trial was resumed of Daniel Richard Cooper and his wife, Martha Elizabeth Cooper, who are jointly charged that, at Newlands, near Johnsonville, on or about October 20. 1922. they murdered the infant child of Alargaret Alary M'Leod and William James Welsh. Both accused were accommodated with seats in the dock, and all witnesses were ordered out of the court, which was again crowded.. Opening the case for the Crown, Air P. S. K. Maeassey outlined the circumstances which led to the introduction of Miss M'Leod to the male accused, who was then carrying on business as a health specialist. M'Leod was then pregnant, and interviews with Cooper led to her going to Cooper’s place at Newlands, the arrangement being that she was to pay £SO and 15s a week while she was at Newlands. Cooper advised her to get the money from the man who was responsible for her condition, money being necessary to defray the cost of confinement and of adoption of the child after birth. Cooper told APLeod that he had someone at Palmerston North who wished to adopt a child. The child was born on October 12, 1922, and was a strong, healthy child. Some eight days later Cooper came to APLeod and said that, the people had come to adopt the child; and he took it away from APLeod, presumably for that, purpose. That was an important link in the chain of evidence in this case Altogether Cooper had received £33 14s in connection with M'Leod’s baby, while he had been put to no expense except. the doctor’s fee for the confinement and the food of APLeod while she was ar. Newlands. Air Alacassey then proceeded to I'elale the circumstances surrounding the interviews between Cooper and the police, during which he said: “We have been treating M'Leod for skin disease,” hut said nothing about the birth of the child. The Crown Prosecutor read lengthy extracts from statements made to the police by Coo-per, in which he said ho had been repeatedly applied to by women in trouble for assistance, but he had consistently refused to have anything to do with them. Inquiries were then made by the police from M'Leod, which led to "a search of Cooper’s property, and resulted in the discovery of a, child’s body-—a b-ody which in age. sex. etc., corresponded closely with M'Leod’s child. When informed of the fact that a body had been found, and when asked for an explanation. Airs Cooper merely said she would like to see her solicitor before making any statement.

Cooper made a statement to the police which indicated that he believed it to be another, child altogether. , Air Alacassey was proceeding to refer to this other child, when Messrs Treadwell and Wilford (for the accused) objected to all such references, and his Honor said the objection could be taken when the evidence was tendered. In the meantime Air Alacassey need not refer lo it. Proceeding. Air Maeassey dwelt on the fact that neither the birth nor the death of the child found on Cooper's property was registered until after the proceedings commenced, and no record of the adoption was made: and he submitted that Cooper and his wife alone knew what became of it. He further submitted that the body found at Newlands was that, of M'Leod’s baby, because both were females, both had dark hair, both were about eight days old, both might have been two months under the ground. It was also the fact that when Airs Cooper took the child away from M'Leod she told M'Leod that the child did not require clothing, as the people who wore going to adopt it, had all the necessary clothing; and when the body was found it was devoid of clothing. If Cooper had it in his power to produce the child it was his duly to do so. If he failed to do so the responsibility was his. The Crown then proceeded to call evidence. The first witness called was Dr Hector, who gave formal evidence as to a certain photograph taken by him. Mr Treadwell objected to the admission of the photograph, claiming that it bad no positive value, and only ministered to melodramatic effect. His Honor, however, ruled that it was admissible, and should be produced. He did not believe that the jury would be susceptible lo melodramatic effect. Senior-sergeant Dinnie. of the Criminal Registration Branch, also gave detailed evidence regarding the photographs taken by him of the grounds, houses, etc., at Newlands. . Margaret Mary M'Leod deposed that she prst met Cooper at his office in February, 1922. She visited him for purposes of medical examination, believing that she was pregnant. Cooper examined her with art instrument, and declared her to be so. Cooper further commented on her state of health, saying that she was in a bad way, and could not expect the child lo be born alive. She saw Cooper again at the end of February, when he advised her to keep in touch with him. Later, when she saw Cooper again, he asked what she proposed doing with the child. She. said she had made no arrangements. He then mentioned that he could get someone to adopt it. This could cost her £SO, which would cover the cost of confinement and adoption. She told Cooper who was responsible for her condition, and he advised her to get the money from him. She said she would get Welsh to call on Cooper, but he did not do so. Cooper said sue could go out to his place just the same, and he knew a married woman at Palmerston North who had no family and who would be glad to take the child without premium. In July she told Cooper she had not ceen able to get the £SO, and he said he would take his chance of that, but he liked the rent of the cottage kept up. On August, 19 she went out to Cooper's. "Pen there Cooper brought to her for signature an agreement under which she promised to release Welsh from all further liability on payment to Cooper of £35. On October 12, 1922, her baby was born. It was a girl, with long dark brown hair and deep blue eyes. It was healthy so far as she knew. She was not aware that it had any injury to its knee. On the 20th Cooper told her people were coming from Palmerston that day for the baby to adopt it. and about 7 o’clock in the evening Airs Cooper came over to her and said the people had arrived to take the child away. She had a dark tug with her, and took the child away. Witness was told by Mrs Cooper that the woman’s husband and a nurse had come for the child. None of the clothing made by witness was taken by Mrs Cooper, as she said the people who were adopting the child did not want any of her clothing. A few days after the child had been taken away she asked Cooper if he had heard anything of it. He said it was doing well. She did not register the birth because Cooper told her that the people who had adopted it would do that. He also told her that the child would have a good heme and be brought up as their own, and no one know any different. He said he would keep in touch with the people, and mentioned that he had placed other children in a similar way. He also mentioned that people who had taken the child of a Aliss I.ester were neighbours of those at Palmerston North, who had taken licrs. She never signed adoption papers of any kind. Her child’s birth was not registered until January of this year, when it was done by the police. She consented to tile adoption of her child because she had not the money to keep he>' and she thought she was doing the best thing for her to get her into a good home. She had made a demand upon Cooper for the return of the child, but it had not been returned to her. Cooper never treated her for any skin disease. She did not take any of her baby’s clothes with her when she left Newlands. To Air Treadwell: The child was perfectly healthy. She fed it.herself. Cooper appeared to be a religious man. He took 1 an interest in children, and was always very kind. To Air Wilford: Aliss Al'Leod staled that she thought from two to five minutes elapsed between the time when Airs Cooper took the child away and came back to witness. Cooper arrived about 15 minutes later. To lest witness’s capacity to judge time counsel asked her to judge the duration of a minute, and when witness said a minute had expired counsel declared that only 14 seconds had passed. Elbe A! uriel Adams deposed that she knew the male accused. In consequence of what Aliss M'Leod told her of her condition she took her to Cooper's office, and there Cooper examined her. She had previously spoken to Cooper about Aliss Al'Leod. While there Aliss Al'Leod and Cooper made some arrangements, but witness did not know what they were. She did not see Aliss Al'Leod for a considerable time after, and when next, she saw Cooper he told her Aliss Al'Leod was doing very well. Airs Cooper was not present wh-n Aliss Al'Leod and witness met Cooper at liis o f I i ■ i ■. William Janies Welsh, storeman, deposed that he knew Miss Al'Leod. He had intercourse with her, with the result that Miss Al'Leod became pregnant. Later Cooper came to see him with regard to the adoption of the child. Cooper wanted £3O. and witness agreed to pay it at the rate of £1 per week. The following Friday night wit-

ness went to Cooper’s offie« and there signed an agreement. WitndS did not sign his proper name to the agreement, as he did not want people to know all about it. Cooper also signed one copy of tho agreement. He paid Cooper £6. and gave him an 1.0.1 T. for £29, Cooper having in the meantime increased his price to £35, because it was necessary to procure clothing for the child. He hail since paid Cooper £ll. He first heard that a child had be-en born when Cooper told him. He mentioned that it was going to be adopted, and should be in good hands. Witness asked Coopif about the adoption papers, and he replied that Aliss Al'Leod had them. Beyond an agreement and the. 1.0. U. he never signed any papers connected with the case. To Air Treadwell: Cooper mentioned to him the name of the adopting parent, but he had forgotten what the name was. Duncan Al'Leod. a salesman, deposed that in consequence of what his sister told him he saw Cooper, who said he felt it, his duty to help his sister through Her trouble, but ho could not do it for nothing, and asked for £59 to cover expenses. Witness suggested that Welsh should pay it, but if not witness would pay it. Cooper proposed certain financial arrangements by which ho could be paid, and said that when the child was born it would be adopted. Subsequently Cooper told him the child was born, and later told him that people had motored down from Palmerston North to adopt the child. Altogether he paid Cooper £23 14s. A final £l9 was compromised for a payment of £l2. To Mr Treadwell: Cooper gave him tho impression that he was easy in the matter of payments, and that he was acting somewhat. in a philanthropic, spirit ; lhat his mission in life was to help fallen girls. Ethel Tucker, a typiste and office attendant at Cooper’s, deposed to collecting money from Duncan Al'Leod under instructions from Cooper. Florence Brown, who had formerly lived at Cooper’s, deposed to writing two agreements to Cooper's dictation. They ■were both signed by Cooper, but Mrs Cooper did not hear Cooper dictating them. She saw Aliss Al'Leod - s baby when it was six days old. It was a healthy child. Cooper told her a lady in Palmerston North had adopted it. He also said Miss Lister’s baby was adopted at Palmerston. Witness remarked that it. was strange that the same person should adopt both babies. Cooper said it was not tile same person, but. they were relatives To Mr Wilford: Witness did not know Cooper was a mesmerist. She had never been under his influence. He seemed to have a lot of control over his wife, but she did not know of any particular influence lie had over her. She did not know that Airs Cooper was just putty in his hands. She did not know that, Cooper had an “ extraordinary ” influence over her. To Mr Alacassey (Crown Prosecutor): So far as she knew Cooper and his wife lived happily together. Lily Lister deposed to the birth of Aliss M'Leod’s child at Newlands, which was a girl. The, clothing produced was like the clothing which Aliss M'Leod had. and which witness afterwards used for her baby.

To Air Treadwell: She paid Cooper nothing while she lived at Newlands, because she did not have it to pry. but notwithstanding that Cooper and his wife could not have treated her more kindly if they had been, her own parents. Dr Wright, practising at Johnsonville, deposed that early in October, 1922, Cooper came to him and asked him to attend a single- girl who was about to be confined. Witness agreed to do so. Cooper further stated that there were a great many women in that condition, and he thought there was monev in it for anyone who cared to look after them. When he arrived at Cooper’s house ha first saw Mrs Cooper, who told him where the patient w'as. When he entered the room he saw the mother and her child there. The mother he now knew to be Aliss Al'Leod, The habv was a female, and was a healthy child. There was another young woman (Aliss Lister) there, who was pregnant, and when lie next saw Airs Cooper he explained to her the regulations prohibited more than one patient being kept in maternity homes unless they were registered, but she replied that Cooper took these girls in out of kindness of heart. He subsequently told Cooper there were rumours that he was engaged in procuring abortions. This Cooper denied, but said he had been able to cure many women of (heir troubles. Witness' advised him. to have nothing to do with pregnant women, or sooner or later he would strike trouble. Witness then detailed the finding of the body of a child on Cooper’s property. Tie child was a female, and had several injuries on the body. The court at this stage adjourned until 10 next day. May-16. When the Cooper case was resumed this morning. Dr Wright, continuing his evidence, detailed the result of the post-mortem examination made by himself and Dr Hector on the body of the child taken from the grave on Cooper’s property, the evi-. dence being on the lines given in the lower court. The conclusions drawn from the examination were that it was probably a full-time child, and had lived at least five days. The injury to the knee indicated violence either before or after death. The same condition applied to the opening in the abdominal wall. These injuries were not caused while the body was being exhumed. There was nothing to show what the actual cause of death was, but there was conclusive evidence that the child had lived. The chiid might have been anything from five to fourteen days old. It had dark hair, and had probably been in the ground two months. The injuiries visible on the child could not have been caused during the burial. To Air Treadwell: If he (witness) said in the lower court that the child had black hair it would have been correct. In tho lower court he ■ fixed three days as the minimum time which the child had lived. Counsel then submitted to witness certain propositions from admitted medical s.ntbm'iti'w-vvl'ich went in ' p direction of proving that there was a difficulty in determining the age of a dead child from its heivbt. weight. rt».. with meet of which witness agreed In the case of the deeomv, . hod v O' ■’ yp-n;,- ph'!' l ifio a was largely a matter of conjecture. There were several tests of determining whether n child was tell-li"’-' some of which were not very certain. The conditions of putrefaction would be affected bv the class of soil in which ihe body was buried and by drainage, whether it was putrefied before burial, and whether' it had been removed from one grave to another. The body had been washed before being weighed at the morgue. ' The weight was approximately 41b. It was witness’s opinion that

the body tound had not been in the ground more than two months, but he could not say that i; had not been there four or live months. To Mr Wiiford: lie could not say definitely what was the cause of death. Dr Maclaurin, Government analyst, gave technical evidence as to the contents of the child's stomach. He found no traces of poison.* Minnie King and Mary Conrick deposed to receiving from Cooper certain baby » clothing (produced), this clothing being that which was left at Newlands by Miss M'Leod. Acting-detective Jar raid gave evidence as to the finding of the child’s body on Cooper's property at Newlands, and as to interviews between both the accused and the police when they were asked to produce M'Leod’s child. When Mrs Cooper replied that she had nothing to say, Cooper said it was impossible for him to produce the child while he was in custody*. He was told that he would be given every assistance in producing the child. To that he made no reply. Wiien charged with the murder of this child Mrs Cooper replied: I am not guilty. Cooper replied: lam innocent. The spade produced was the one found on Cooper’s property. He had used it to clear a wayearth from the top of the grave, and he saw that it exact.lv fitted a mark made in the clay in the side of the grave. He was certain the injuries subsequently found on the body were not caused while he was using the spade. Inspector W. B. MTlvenev deposed that when he asked Mrs Cooper for an explanation of the burial of a child in her grounds at Newlands, she merely replied: I would like to see my solicitor, Mr Maule. I have nothing to say. Senior-detective Lewis gave evidence as to statements made to him by Cooper when told that the body of a child had been found at Newlands. He professed great surprise and horror. He practically insinuated that a man named Lupi had done it. Hugo Lupi, a fisherman, deposed that he knew- nothing of Miss M'Leod having a child at Newlands, and he never buried any oh-ld there. Acting-detective M'Lennan gave particulars of documents and baby’s clothing (produced) found in Cooper’s office, and in other respects he corroborated the evidence given by previous police witnesses. To Mr Wiiford: When Mrs Cooper was interviewed and said she would liko to see her solicitor, her solicitor was not brought, because she did not ask that he should be brought. She merely said she * would like to see him and that she had nothing to say. lie saw no bright shining discs in Cooper’s house, and he did not know what such discs would be used for. Frederick William Hart, clerk of the Court at Wellington, said he could find no record in the court books of the adoption of Miss M'Leoo’s child. No such application or order had been made in Wellington. John Kennedy, formerly clerk of the court at Palmerston North, had searched the records there and could not find any record of adoption of Miss M'Leod’s child. A representative of the Registrargeneral’s office said his office had not received notice of the adoption of Miss M'Leod’s child. There was a record of its birth, but none of its death. T 0 his Honor: The files in the head office were complete if the local registrars aid their duty and sent in notices of adoptions in their districts. The court then adjourned till next day. THE LISTER BABY. WELLINGTON, May 17. At the Supreme Court, Wellington,. this morning, the trial was continued of Daniel Richard Cooper and his wife, Martha Elizabeth Cooper, who are jointly charged that at Newlands, near Johnsonville, on or about October 20, 1922, they murdered the infant child of Margaret Mary M'Leod and William James Welsh. Mr P. S. K. Macassey (Crown Prosecutor) intimated that ho proposed to introduce evidence regarding three other babies which had been handed over to Cooper or to Mrs Cooper for the purposes of adoption. To this procedure, he said, he understood Mr Treadwell proposed to object Mr C. L. Treadwell said he must respectfully submit that any such evidence was inadmissible, because the medical evidence went to show that there was a strong probability that the body found was not the body of M'Leod’s baby. There was no evidence to show that M'Leod’s baby was dead or murdered, and unless this additional evidence was admitted there could bo no evidence in that, direction. There could be no conviction for murder, he submitted, (1) unless death had taken place, and the best proof of death was the finding of the body; (2) unless the body found was identical with the deceased person; (3) unless death was due to unlawful violence, criminal negligence, or some other cause not innocent. He quoted at great length legal authorities in support of this view. The evidence so far led was not such as the jury could convict on. He therefore claimed that the evidence the prosecution now proposed to ask the court to consider could not be submitted. Mr T. M. Wiiford, on behalf of Mrs Cooper, formal!- objected to the evidence on the broad ground that it was nat admissible, and asked his Honor for a ruling in order to protect him in any appeal he might lodge. Mr Macassey, in reply, quoted authorities in support of the contention that he was entitled to submit evidence to the court which would prove system on the part of the accused. He submitted that the conduct of the accused disclosed systematic baby-farming; that there was no real intention of adopting the children : that adoption was a mere sham and fraud ; that the death of" M'Leod’s baby was not natural, and that, it was murdered by accused; and that he was entitled to call evidence which would prove the system under which this was done. His Honor said that he had no doubt it was his duty to admit the evidence proposed to be submitted by the Crown. Mr Treadwell had asked him to say that there was no evidence which he could properly submit to the jury that M'Leod’s child was dead or murdered, or was murdered by the accused. He had no desire to go oyer the whole of the evidence, but it was his duty to consider the issues raised by this evidence. All other cases of this class tried in their courts were similar in principle to this one, and it had come to be the common practice of judges to admit evidence proving system. He would admit the evidence, and whether the point should be reserved could bo considered later. *

Mr Macassey then called Lily Lister, who gave evidence as to the birth of Lupi Lister, her child. On November 13, 1522, she was taken by Cooper to a Mrs King’s place in Martin street, where her child was born. Subsequently she was sent by Cooper, in company with Miss Adams, to Newlands. At Johnsonville railway station she was met by Cooper and Mrs Cooper. There she left the baby with Mrs Cooper and Miss Adams, and she was taken on to Newlands. Her belief was that, in accordance with an arrangement with Cooper, someone was ~oming to meet the Coopers at Johnsonville station to adopt the child. Hhe never saw either the baby or the elothir it had on again. Cooper afterwards told ner that the baby was all right. She would not have parted with her baby if she had known it was not going to be adopted. She saw no one at Johnsonville or Newlands on the night of her arrival who might have taken the child to adopt it. Cooper had since told her that he expected to hear from the people who adopted the child, but ho never told her (heir name, it being one of the conditions of adoption that she should not know who they were. She never signed, any adoption papers in connection with her child. She made formal demand for her child from Cooper, but it had not been produced. To Mr Treadwell: The suggestion about the adoption of the baby came first from her, not from Cooper. To Mr Wiiford : The last person she saw with her child was Miss Adams, at Johnsonville railway station. When Mrs Cooper returned to the house she did not have the baby with her. She said the people who were to adopt the child had not arrived, but she did not wait. After she went to bed at Newlands. Cooper left, the house, and it might have been half an hour before ho returned. She then asked him if the baby was ali right. He replied, “Yes.” She would not swear that the shawl produced was the one she had round her fc-aby, but it was very like it. She saw a good deal of Mrs Cooper while at Newlands. She could not say Cooper had any “extraordinary” control over Mrs Cooper, but she gene.raliy did as he desired, although she might object to it. To Mr Macassey: On one ocoa sion she wanted to go to town. Cooper objected, saying someone was corning out. She replied : “You maike me a dumping ground for everyone, but Miss Lister will be the last.” Dr llector gave evidence us to the condition of the second body found at Newlands. To him it. appeared to be a full-time child. It. appeared to have been buried about, a year. He could not. say if it had ever lived, nor the cause of death. To Mr Treadwell: The body might have been in the ground eighteen months. It- was very difficult tc estimate the exact time. Similar evidence was given regarding the third body found. It was more crushed than the second body, leading to the conclusion that it had been pressed down into tire grave. It had a binder round the body, indicating that it was about seven days old. It may have been in the ground about six months. Reasoning on the structure of the skeletons, he would say that the second body was that of a male, the third of a female. , To Mr Treadwell: There was no means by which the sex of children could be determined definitely. Hugo Lupi described the arrangements he made with Cooper for the adoption bypeople in Palmerston North of Lupi Lister, the child. Cooper told him that tno people he had in view were well-to-do, and* it would only cost him about £3O. After lunch Mr Macassey lead to Hugo Lupi a statement made by Cooper to the police to the effect that Lupi had arranged to take Miss Lister’s child away from Newlands and a description as to how those arrangements were carried out on November 23. Lupi’s reply was: “It is a lie right through. It is a nightmare he (Cooper) had while in the lock-up.” Witness declared that he had never at any . time seen his baby. He never paid Cooper. Cooper was to get his money when the adoption was completed. On November 23, 1922, ho was working on a roof at Mrs Christie’s bouse at Reef street, Island Bay, and was not at Newlands at all! When brought face to face with Cooper at the Police (Station, and Cooper’s statement was read over to him, he called Cooper “a dirty liar.” lie was very angry, lost his head, and called Cooper’s solicitor a liar too, because he backed Cooper up. Salve Greco, a fisherman, produced a diary to show that ho and Lupi were working together at Christie’s on November 23, 1522. He bad tea at Luipi’s house, and was with him til! late in the evening. Vincent Barnes corroborated the evidence of the above witness. Minnie King gave formal evidence of the birth of the Lupi-Listor child at her house. Cooper brought Miss Lister to the house! and took her and the child away. It was a strong healthy child. Cooper told her the child was going to be adopted by some people in Palmerston North, but subsequently he said the people would not take it because she had notified its birth. At the Police Station Cooper said she had made arrangements for the adoption of Lister’s child. She retorted that (Jooper had made the arrangements. 110 called her a liar. She replied she was not a liar, that he knew where the child was. Cooper guaranteed her a payment of £3, but she could onlv eet £4 or £5 from him. Dr Wright gave similar evidence to that given by Doctor Hector, regarding tire condition of the second and third bodies found at Newlands. I>r Ileotor (recalled) said the wound found on the body of the child, said to be Miss M'Leod’s child, would have been sufficient to have caused death. Eiiie Adams deposed that Cooper asked her to go with hint to Mrs King’s house. She there met Lily Lister, who had a baby. 'They came back to Cooper’s office, and left for Johnsonville by the 8.45 train' On arrival at Johnsonville Miss Lister went to Newlands with Cooper. Mrs Cooper and witness walked on as far as the bridge. Mrs Cooper then took the baby from witness. and witness returned to the station and left for Wellington by train. The arrangement was that Cooper was to return lirom Newlands and meet Mrs Cooper. Witness understood from Cooper that someone was to meet them at Johnsonville for '• the purpose of adopting Miss Lister’s child, that was the last she saw of the child. Ethel Tucker deposed that Cooper had ■ told her Miss Lister’s child was in a good home. I Sergeant Dinnie gave formal evidence as I to photographs taken by him of the grounds, > graves, etc., at Newlands. i Dr Smyth deposed to attending Miss Lister at her confinement, i The court at this stage adjourned until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning. ■ The court at this stage adjourned. At the Cooper trial this morning, Actingdefteetive M'Lennan deposed that when I Cooper was asked regarding the birth of Miss Lister’s child he denied all knowledge

of it. He denied having paid Mrs King any money in oonncciion with the birth of the child. When asked why he made out a receipt in reference to Miss Lister’s child he refused to give an answer. Subsequently he admitted having taken Miss Lister to his place at, Newlands, but said that Mrs King had made all the arrangements for the birth and tile adoption of Lister’s child. When Mrs Cooper was questioned about Lister’s child she asked v.h»r* her husband was. When told that he was detained at the Police Station she replied: “1 have May 18. nothing to sav.” Again, when questioned at the Police Station, her reply was: “I have nothjng to say.” Ijiler, when faced with the statements made by Miss Lister and Mrs King, directly connecting her with Taster’s child, she consented to make a statement, in which she said that, she had handed Lister's child over to soma lady whom she did not know, but who was sitting in a motor car near the Johnsonville railway station; but she could not say in which direction the car drove away. The next day the male accused offered to make a statement, which he subsequently did. In that statement ho said that the man to whom he handed Lister’s child was Hugo Lupi. This statement Lupi afterwards hotly denied. When charged with the offence of unlawfully detaining the Lupi-Listor child, neither accused made any reply Both took up the same negative attitude when served with a formal demand to produce the child. To Mr Wiiford: He believed < ’oope.r had convinced M'Leod, Lister, and Beadle that their children had been adopted. Ho could not say whether Mrs Cooper was equally convinced. lie had riot noticed any difference in Mrs Cooper’s manner in interviews before the bodies were found and after. At the interviews she seemed uncertain what to say, but gave intelligent answers to questions. He made no effort to “wring” a statement from iier. All be wanted her to do was to say what she knew of Lister’s child. He now knew that Mrs Cooper wished to withdraw the statement she made to him, on the ground that it was inaccurate. To Mr Macassey: At all the interviews Mrs Cooper seemed cool and collected, carefully considering every answer she gave to every question. Acting-detective Harold said that while tlie police were making inquiries Cooper was left in his charge. In reply to a question by witness, Cooper said someone in Palmerston North had adopted Lister’s child, but he was pledged not to disclose ihe name of the person who adopted it. He said that if let out he could produce the child. He asked witness to take care of a bundle of correspondence and hand it to his solicitor, as without this correspondence the polico could not do much with him. He also asked witness to get into touch with Mrs Tucker, and ask her to see Mrs King, and tell her not to say anything, to the police. To Mr Treadwell: Witness did not tell Cooper he was a detective, and Coojier evidently did r.ot suspect it. Witness was then acting in the capacity of clerk. Inspector W. B. M'Hveney deposed that when he asked Cooper to say what became of Lister’s child Cooper refused to do so. Witness told Cooper he was not charged with any offence, and if he had acted honestly by the child he had nothing to fear. Cooper made no reply. He denied any knowledge of the girl who took luster’s child from Mrs King. He said he did not know her, and could not describe hor. Witness subsequently asked Cooper what correspondence he had with Harold. Cooper denied having any. Witness then received from Harold the bundle of correspondence given to him by Cooj>er, whereupon Cooper expressed regret that he had not acknowledged having it. After reading the correspondence, witness again asked Cooper what had become of Lister’s child. He then put the whole responsibility on Mrs King, who subsequently, in Cooper’s presence, denied the allegations he made; whereupon Cooper called her a ‘‘liar.” Mrs Cooper, when questioned, refused to say anything. In a subsequent interview Cooper persisted that Mrs King was the only person who knew the whereabouts of the child To Mr Wiiford: If Mrs Cooper, instead of saying “I have nothing to say,” had made a reasonable explanation of her connection with the Lister child ho would have investigated it, and if the investigation had proved favourable to her he would not have detained her. The last thing he wanted to do was to lay an information against her. Detective Nuttali corroborated the evidence of the two previous witnesses a.s to interviews with the Coopers. To Mr Wiiford: There was nothing in the nature of a “bombardment” of Mrs Cooper with questions. She made a statement which may have been made for the purpose of helping to extricate her husband from his difficulty. Next morning she asked to withdraw her statement. Acting-detective Jarrald deposed that Cooper told him he had not. given Lister’s child to Lupi, but to a man who was to give it to a married couple, whom he could not name. When witness offered to find the child, if only Cooper would give him the necessary information, Cooper made no reply. Senior-detective Lewis corroborated the evidence of previous police witnesses regarding interviews with the Coopers. The court then adjourned for lunch. After lunch Lewis, in cross-examination by Mr WHford, admitted Mrs Cooper might have reached her house after handing over the baby to Cooper in the lime specified by Miss Lister, 15 minutes. Formal evidence was given by court and Registrar office officials that no record was made of the adoption of the Lister child the birth of which was registered on January 8, 1923. There was no record of its death. Mr Macassey said he would now call evidence regarding Miss BeadJe’s children. .Beatrice Irene Beadle, a housemaid by calling, gave evidence that she became acquainted wi-h the Coopers in Dunedin four years ago. Bhe then came to Wellington and lived with them at Island Bay, where she was intimate with Cooper, whose wife knew this, and made no objection. On June 10, 1920. witness gave birth to a bo at Lyttelton, whither Cooper had taken ht for confinement. Tile child was taken late to Mrs Adams, Christchurch, where wit ness understood it was to remain permanently. She and Cooper then came back together to Wellington. When the child was about a month old Cooper received a letter from Mrs Adams saying the baby was unwell. Witness and Cooper went to Christchurch, got the child, and brought it back to Wellington, it went to Cooper’s bouse in Adelaide road. After it had re-

mained there for two or three days Cooper said he was arranging for someone from the country to adopt it. Witness went out on the afternoon when people were coming to take the baby away, as she was upset. When she returned, Cooper, in the house, said the people had called and taken ihe j little one away. He told her not to worry or to ask questions. If witness had known that the child was not going to be adopted she would not have parted with it. This was some time in July. Witness had not seen or heard of the child since. She continued to live with the Coopers and went with them to Newlands in March, 1921. Witness had not signed anything relating to the adoption of the child of which Cooper was the father. Later she made a formal demand for the possession of Ihe child. It was not produced. Cross-examined by Mr Treadwell witness said that while living with the Coopers she acted very often in the capacity of secretary to Cooper and was acquainted with the details of his business. To Mr Wiiford witness said Mrs Cooper was not at the house when her child was taken away, and so far as witness knew she had nothing to do with its going. On November 27, 1921, witness gave birth to a female child -at Mrs King’s place in Wellington. Cooper was the father of this child also. Twelve days later it was taken to Newlands. Mrs Cooper was absent in Dunedin at this time, and hod nothing to do with the child. Re-examined, witness said she had not noticed that Cooper exerted any undue influence over his wife, Lily Olsen, midwife, of Lyttelton, gave evidence relating to the birth of Mies Beadle’s child in June, IS2O. similar to (liar, given in the lower court. Cooper came with Miss Beadle to arrange for her confinement. They passed as man and wife under the name of “Reid.” Matilda M. Adams, of Christchurch, stated that she saw an advertisement in June, 1920, asking for someone to mind a baby. She answered it, and a few days later accused (Cooper) came to see her, and she agreed to take a male child, for which she was to receive 12s 6d weekly. That evening Cooper and the young woman Beadle brought the child, which was to remain with - witness for a fortnight. The child was quite healthy. A week later, owing to a bereavement in witness’s family, she wrote Cooper, who came with Beadle and took the child away. It was still in perfect health. Cooper paid for the child’s keep, and that was the last witness saw of Cooper, Beadle, or the child. Acting-detective M'Lennan -ave evidence as to interviews he had with the two accused regarding Beadle’s child, born at Lytteiicii. They Loth replied that they had nothing to say. He later served a demand on both accused for the production af this child by January 29, 1923. Cooper said he could not very well produce the child while he was under arrest. Witness said the police would give any assistance required if accused would say where the child was. The child was not produced, and a charge was then laid against accused of unlawfully detaining the child. Neither made any comment. Acting-detective Jarrald corroborated the previous witness’s evidence. Formal evidence was given that there was no record in the registrar’s books of aity adeption of Miss Beadle’s child: nor was there any record of its birth or death. The court adjourned at 5 p.m. till 10 a m. next day. The Crown Prosecutor said he expected to complete his evidence by midday on Saturday, and to close his case on Monday. May 19. The hearing of the charge of baby murder against the Coopers was resumed at the Supreme Court this morning. Beatrice Irene Beadle gave evidence as to the birth of her second child, by Cooper She became pregnant in February. 1921, anu the child was born on November 27, 1921. From March to October Mrs Cooper was absent from Wellington, but she knew witness was pregnant before she left. Cooper told witness he was getting some well-to-do people in Palmerston North to adopt the chitd. Witness then described how, after her confinement, she and the child were taken to Newlands by Cooper. They were accompanied by Miss Adams. Witness, not 'ueing very well, did not walk to Newlands, but stayed at the bottom of the hill beyond Johnsonville railway station. Cooper and Miss Adams took the baby over the hill towards Newlands, Mass Adams subsequently coining back and rejoining witness at the foot of the hill. Witness and Adams then returned to Wellington. That was the last she saw of hor child. When she next saw Cooper he told her the people bad been waiting in a motor car to take the child to Palmerston North, and it was doing well. She would not have parted with the child if she had known it was not going to be adopted. She had never signed adoption papers in connection with her child. She made formal demand for the child from Cooper, but it had not been restored to her To Mr Treadwell: While cohabiting with Cooper she lived in the house with Mrs Cooper, and remained on perfectly friendly terms with her. After the birth of the second child she continued her relations with Cooper for a month or so. To Mr YY bford: Miss Adams was away from her for only two minutes. By that she judged that she must have handed the baby over to Cooper before they reached Newlands. Mrs Cooper was not at Newlands that night. Witness believed a motor car would be waiting with people, who would immediately take the child away to adopt. She had perfect confidence in Cooper’s story regarding the adoption of the child. Mrs King deposed as to the birth of Beadle’s second child at her house, and Dr Smyihe gave corroborative evidence. Ettie Muriel Adams deposed that after Cooper and she left Beadle at the foot of the hill she carried the baby to a fence near some trees. Cooper there got through the fence, and witness handed the baby to him. He then told her she could return to Beadle, as he could carry it the rest of the way. She was only a few minutes absent, from Beadle. Cooper told her the child was to bo adopted, and she believed him. Mr Wiiford: You are. the fifth woman who believed that story. Witness: Yes. Acting-detective M'Lennan gave formal evidence as to the demands made upon the Coopers for restitution of this child. To Mr Wiiford: Mrs Cooper was away from Wellington when this child disappeared. She might therefore have been perfectly innocent when she said “I have nothing to say” in connection with it.

Formal evidence was given to show that there was no official record of the adoption of this child. Formal evidence also was given by the polico as to the finding of the body at Newlands. It was covered with soil, mixed with wood and rushes. At this stage Mr Macassey intimated that the Crown evidence could not possibly bo concluded to-day, and the court adjou:nod till 10 o’clock on Monday.